NZcrusade says...

@pog_mahone:

I mean't no disrespect to Ireland's effort last weekend, it was an epic showing and a complete turn around from the previous week and certainly showed that Ireland have the potential to be at the top, providing they can play like that consistently. It was Irish pressure and commitment bringing about a below par(imo) NZ performance. Perhaps my point came across poorly in that manner, in which case apologies. All I was implying was, that it is far to early to start assuming NZ are going to be performing like SA or England post WC wins, especially when they've started with a series win.

Posted 19:50 21st June 2012

kybone says...

jonesy2- You're welcome to your opinions, but can you actually back them up? My guess is no. Of course the NH are getting closer to the SH. You only have to look at the results to see that. Wales lost by 2 points to Oz in Oz and they were disappointed with that! Scotland, the 6N worst team, beat Oz in Oz. Ireland only got beaten by 3 to NZ in Christchurch, and England by 9 against SA at altitude. Thats a combined losing margin of 14 points and we were all away from home! Australia have been beaten by a NH team for the last 3 World Cups in a row!

For me, NZ are still the best team in the world but below them theres very little to choose between the next 6 or 7 teams. And even the ones below that are starting to get wins against big teams every now and then i.e. Samoa v Australia, Scotland v Australia, Italy v France, Tonga v France, Scotland v SA etc.

Posted 16:40 21st June 2012

BokkeJ says...

@Trinats, why is it that people feel so compelled to always try and knock SA's 2 world cup wins? Lets just look at pure and simple facts. If all games ever played are taken into account the AB's have a comfortable winning ratio over every other nation on earth (although their ratio over SA is not so comfortable - 55%)... so lets call them the best. SA have a comfortable winning ratio over every nation on earth (yes including Aus) except the AB's ... so lets say we're the second best. Why do our 2x World Champ wins bother everyone so much!?! Surely the second strongest team, statistically, of all time deserves at least 2 world cup wins?

Posted 15:36 21st June 2012

jonesy2 says...

you have some nerve to call mike harris' kicking against scotland "wayward".

NHsaints- yes they do, the allblacks were pretty much a disgrace and let down the christchurch fans hugely. but to put them is the not section is funny because only a truely ridiculously dominant sporting team can slip out of a pickle with such seemingly nonchalant ease

Jazz-- sorry mate the NH are the opposite of getting closer, they are getting further and further apart.

Posted 15:11 21st June 2012

latehit says...

You should be looking at a number of the U20s teams currently in SA for the Junior world cup. Rumor and strife abound. Why are England and Australia with the talent they have, playing off for 7th and 8th. All night parties, nightclub fights, booze benders, no respect for coaches. Bu then again when you have rugby role models like Q.Cooper and K.Beale who can get away with anything and get not punishment, what do you expect from a bunch of impressionable kids. Well Done to the finalists. Top Quality Rugby. Shame on the pre tournament favorites (not SA or NZ) for letting your country down with shameless behavior.

Posted 12:38 21st June 2012

markpat says...

How are the southern hemispehere heavyweights hot, but NZ are not hot?

Dan Carter is hot because he got a 50% strike rate on drop goals right in front of the posts after one of his quieter games?

How is Mike Harris hot for kicking one goal in a game?

How are Italy hot? They were appalling against Canada. Similar query about Tim Visser - yes he scored 2 tries, but his defence was appalling.

I'm guessing no-one actually watched either of these games, or expectations are exceptionally low this week!

Posted 11:37 21st June 2012

Trinats2 says...

Stellenbosched2:

You are right, SA did avoid the best teams to be given the 2007 WC after finishing bottom of tri nations yet again, and throw in there their dodgy Home 95 campagin, but that's the draw so move on.

with regards to NZ, no one picks on the poor performance from NZ due to the protection they received from ...a saffa ref ! and everyone focused on the poor ref rather than the poor performance (or great French performance) Hence no reaction to the low score.

As a neutral and self confessed arm chair critic !!! SA do kick too much for my liking and always have (strange when you have such a dominate pack) NZ get away with too much, because the rest of the world has bought into the AB marketing campaign, including the Barbour jacket wearing crowd that is IRB.

I hear people on her refer to soccer and all I ever heard in the UK is how Man U got away with so much. Granted NZ and man U were the consistently best around but the is no doubt some of their results were handed to them because of a preconceived reputation.

Posted 10:46 21st June 2012

letsgoboks says...

2EyedKiwi - agree with you :D

Posted 10:25 21st June 2012

kybone says...

So NZ are 'Not Hot' but the team beaten by NZ are 'Hot'??? So basically NZ have to win by at least 20 points every time to even be considered for the 'Hot' list. How come the Pumitas are bottom of the 'Not Hot' list but their Welsh counterparts aren't on the list at all when they collapsed in a very similar fashion? Im surprised that the RFU aren't in the 'Not Hot' list given their decision to drag out the London Welsh appeal thing for ANOTHER week. 28th June the hearing is now set for! LW and Newcastle might find out what league they're in by the start of pre season training, if they're lucky!

Posted 10:18 21st June 2012

sandal says...

@hayj05

lol. good man!

Posted 09:50 21st June 2012